What’s the difference between …
#define CPPX_CSI_DIR( maindir ) \
CPPX_CONCAT3( maindir, /, CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR )
… and …
#define CPPX_CSI_DIR( maindir ) \
CPPX_CONCAT3_( maindir,/, CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR )
…? Well, the former works with MSVC (Microsoft Visual C++), while the latter works with both MSVC and g++, for the purpose of this macro. The macro is part of a scheme for automatically choosing a compiler specific header, as I described in an earlier posting, and g++ treats spaces, such as the space before the slash, as Very Significant when the macro expansion ends up as the path specification of an #include directive!
Hubris… When I made that earlier posting I’d just streamlined the compiler specific include scheme to be more clear and reusable, but I’d only tested that new version with MSVC! Of course g++ would have none of that. Yer givin’ me a version that’s only been tested with MSVC? Ye got to be kidding! I’ll show you who’s G around here! I’ll stomp and spit on all them significant spaces!
To make a long story short (applause!), here’s the updated g++ and MSVC compatible version of the CSI scheme:
In [progrock/cppx/compiler_specific/include.h]:
#include <progrock/cppx/macro_util.h> // CPP_CONCAT3_
#if defined( _MSC_VER )
# define CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR msvc
#elif defined( __GNUC__ )
# define CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR gnuc
#else
# define CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR _generic
#endif
// NOTE: The "missing" spaces before the slashes are important for the g++ compiler.
#define CPPX_CSI_DIR( maindir ) \
CPPX_CONCAT3_( maindir,/, CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR )
#define CPPX_CSI_PATH( maindir, path ) \
CPPX_CONCAT3_( CPPX_CSI_DIR( maindir ),/, path )
#define CPPX_CSI_BRACKET_PATH( maindir, path ) \
CPPX_CONCAT3_( <, CPPX_CSI_PATH( maindir, path ), > )
// To avoid macro replacement a component of 'path' should not be all uppercase
// and should not be any of 'assert', 'errno', 'offsetof', 'setjmp', 'va_arg',
// 'va_end' or 'va_start', which are macros -- see C++98 §17.4.1.2/5.
// NOTE: The "missing" space before "progrock" is important for the g++ compiler.
// When invoking this macro do not have spaces around the macro argument!
#define CPPX_COMPILER_SPECIFIC_INCLUDE(path) \
CPPX_CSI_BRACKET_PATH(progrock/cppx/compiler_specific, path )
Of course, for this to be useful to you you’ll also need the definition of the CPPX_CONCAT3_ macro. Sorry, I forgot that the first time around. But here it is:
In [progrock/cppx/macro_util.h]:
// Concatenate with expansion of arguments: #define CPPX_CONCAT_RAW( a, b ) a ## b #define CPPX_CONCAT( a, b ) CPPX_CONCAT_RAW( a, b ) #define CPPX_CONCAT3_RAW( a, b, c ) a ## b ## c #define CPPX_CONCAT3( a, b, c ) CPPX_CONCAT3_RAW( a, b, c ) // NOTE: spaces may be significant (e.g. for the g++ compiler). // This is just in support of <progrock/cppx/compiler_specific/include.h> with g++. #define CPPX_TERM(x)x #define CPPX_CONCAT_( a, b )CPPX_TERM(a)CPPX_TERM(b) #define CPPX_CONCAT3_( a, b, c )CPPX_TERM(a)CPPX_TERM(b)CPPX_TERM(c)
I don’t know what the standard mandates, whether g++ is within its rights here or not. But while I fixed this I ran into a g++ bug. Namely that in some cases, such as within a struct or within a function template, it chokes on a typedef that defines the same type (in the same way) as earlier, contrary to C++98 §7.1.3/2:
In a given scope, a
typedefspecifier can be used to redefine the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to the type to which it already refers.
That g++ does not honor that paragraph meant that I had to fix up the CPPX_STATIC_ASSERT macro that I described in an earlier posting, solely to work around the g++ compiler bug:
In [progrock/cppx/devsupport/static_assert.h]:
// The __LINE__ is not formally necessary (see C++98 §7.1.3/2), but caters to g++ bug.
#define CPPX_STATIC_ASSERT( e ) \
typedef char CPPX_CONCAT( CppxStaticAssertShouldBeTrue_, __LINE__ )[(e)? 1 : -1]
Ah, well, more hubris… I was sure that the original worked OK with both MSVC and g++ since it passed all unit testing and was standard-conforming. But the unit test didn’t test having two CPPX_STATIC_ASSERT invocations in the same scope, with g++! In my defense, it’s practically impossible to test for all possible compiler bugs. But still, I think I should have caught this one!
Alf on programming (mostly C++) 
Hi,
since you mentioned that you couldn’t make this work reliably I
was curious and finally got around to look at it. Actually, I
just stopped at the first line and then looked up the definition
of CPPX_CONCAT3, but I guess all the problems come from there
([footnote]). The result of the ## operator must be a valid
preprocessing token or the behavior is undefined.
[footnote] Unless you also mention problems that don’t come from
there 🙂 Seriously, I meant to look at it quickly, so once I
found this I stopped.
Yes, that’s the difference between the original’s
CPPX_CONCAT3and the second version’sCPPX_CONCAT3_(note the underscore), defined above in this posting. The latter avoids using##, but I don’t know whether it’s standard-conforming. It works for generating#includepaths, but not in general… For some reason Visual C++ was happy with##, but g++ would have none of it! And I guess you’re right that all the problems come from this.I still haven’t looked at the details of how you do this in Breeze.
My reasoning is that since different compilers do preprocessor things in slightly different ways (non-standard) what matters is whether something works, and how well it works, not absolute standard-conformance. The above works with Visual C++ and g++, at least, but as described it’s very brittle in that invocations can’t have extraneous spaces. However, since it’s all accessed via a single higher level macro I think it can easily be replaced with e.g. the Breeze scheme.
Cheers, & thanks,
– Alf
OK. I didn’t notice there was also a version that didn’t use
##(I didn’t notice the underscore (eh!); and thought the answer to
“what’s the difference” was simply “there’s no space before the
forward slash” 🙂 —that’s when people allow themselves to be
influenced by the title; well, I guess, at least, IANF (I am not
Freud)).
I have never tried using the angle-bracket form (I never use it
for user source files). I guess that g++ just “behaves better”
with the quoted form.
You might make a quick check by reducing the code to (warning:
untested; may cause hair loss)
// BTW: // ---- // I'm reporting this unchanged; but I wouldn't use it. The idea // is that if you add support for a new compiler you don't have // to re-compile anything for the others. So this kind of // selection is IMHO excluded a priori. (The macro corresponding // to CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR, in my case, is defined at the build // level, eventually ending in a /D compiler option or // equivalent) // #if defined( _MSC_VER ) # define CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR msvc #elif defined( __GNUC__ ) # define CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR gnuc #else # define CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR _generic #endif #define STRINGIZE_IMPL( x ) #x #define ENCLOSE( x ) /*<x> //*/ STRINGIZE_IMPL( x ) #define CPPX_COMPILER_SPECIFIC_INCLUDE( path ) \ ENCLOSE( progrock/cppx/compiler_specific/CPPX_CSI_SUBDIR/path )and then removing the leading “/*” where ENCLOSE is defined.
Generally speaking, every time you use this or similar code for
a new compiler you have to check the documentation (assuming
there is one) because the way in which the final sequence
<tokentokentoken…blah blah> or "tokentokentoken…uhoh"
resolves to a header name, and how that in turn resolves to a
source file, is implementation defined.
Note, too, that function-like macros aren’t really a problem,
unless you manage to get the open-parenthesis in there, too (and
at the “right” place; now, whoever really manages to do so…).
I have no file named “setjmp” (!) but I do have one named
assert.cpp; it’s not the subject of any selection macros,
though, as it only involves portable stuff. If I really wanted
to check this by other means than human review I’d have to write
an inspect tool (which I had intention to write anyway, for
other reasons).
Of course, for an unexpected macro expansion to really be a
problem:
– you should have an oddly named file; or name it as
all-uppercase in source code
– the macro should expand to something that makes the whole
“header name” resolve to another source file that –uh– you
happen to have as well; or invoke UB (on a compiler that
doesn’t know much about diagnostics)
– the contents of that other source file should be such that you
don’t notice that you actually compiled something else.
Did I forget anything?
<digression>
Incidentally, there seems to be yet-another-problem in the
standard: the paragraph you cite says (in a note) that e.g.
errno (but it’s not the only case in the list; see e.g. the now
so popular setjmp :-)) is one of the names “defined as macros in
C” but the C standard actually says it can be a macro or an
identifier with external linkage (admittedly, it first says it’s
a macro then goes saying it might not. Anyhow, it’s not a case
of “grants license for implementation as function”). IMHO the
weak part here (in the C++ standard) is the wording “defined as
macros in C”.
</digression>
I haven’t dwelt on why I think the above is OK, because an
explanation (although focused on the quoted-include case) is in
breeze/trunk/…/dependent_code.hpp
and I’d like to see if it is clear on its own when the reader
hasn’t been already exposed to the reasoning behind it (IOWs,
I’m hoping for feedback :-)).
P.S.:
(the postscript of sadness)
the syntax highlighting of line-continued macro definitions is
terrible: it grays the macro name and parameters, and emphasizes
the replacement list 😦 (I’d expect the suggested workaround
from the Department of Dumb would be line-continuing immediately
after
#define:#define \ UH() \ "Wow... now it half-works")